Is it seriously not going to be Warren?

[piechartking]

I thought I read that they had ruled her out. Then, I saw the train wreck that was Tim Kaine's audition at the rally yesterday with HRC. Surely, surely SURELY they can't have categorically ruled out the last hope to get some excitement and passion back into this campaign!

Someone please tell me that Warren is still up for consideration.

[snooper2]

1. Warren is still up for consideration

[Mike Nelson]

2. I understand...

...there are several reasons not to pick Warren. However, she and Clinton have the best chemistry. They are more exciting together, too...

[yallerdawg]

3. This bland establishment pick by Trump...

could get Hillary to swing for the fences and pick Warren!

A bland establishment pick by Hillary would be a lost opportunity for her to get outside the box!

[Calculating]

4. Hillary needs to spice things up somehow

Her campaign isn't inspiring enough. Right now it's mostly a "well, she's at least better than Trump" thing. Bernie was amazing at actually inspiring people.

[stopbush]

6. Her campaign is plenty inspiring if you appreciate substance

over showmanship.

It's always disappointed to see DUers buying the RW/media crap about Ds.

[DURHAM D]

9. Yep. I am totally inspired. nt

[StraightRazor]

11. I completely agree...

except that this is America and voters by and large are bored with actual substance (Kerry) over excitement (Obama).

There is nothing right-wing to the suggestion that we live in a celebrity obsessed, shallow, five-second-attention-span society - it's why Trump is doing so well (though how well is I think, somewhat exaggerated), and why the media is constantly covering him as if he was true candidate. Most people in this country can't tell that he's a clown, he puts on a good show and that's enough for them.

[rjsquirrel]

26. Agreed

I find it inspiring to stay inside the damn box for a change and try to get some shit done.

That's why she's my candidate.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. it's amazing how they call her uninspiring, when she clearly inspired a lot more votes

if a politician cannot inspire votes, then how exactly are they inspirational?

[procon]

14. Spice up HER campaign by letting someone else have the spotlight?

This isn't American Idol or Dancing With the Stars, and the next president of the US isn't supposed to entertain you. Hillary already IS better than Trump.

[earthshine]

25. You are exactly right.

Hillary does not have strong appeal to anyone but the most tow-the-line Democrats, such as the people on DU.

The polls go back and forth. The reality is half this country does not consider her better than Trump.

A selection of Warren for VP would energize the left.

But, how does Warren feel about it? She doesn't strike me as intrinsically ambitious.

The most important qualification for VP is that s/he be prepared to take over at any time.

The choice of VP obviously also reflects the Democrats' orientation toward who should be the ensuing president.

I don't think that the corporatist (and dominant) wing of the Democratic Party is ready for Elizabeth Warren.

Peace.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

35. she steal beat him handily though. just because her style is not rallying, doesn't mean she

doesn't inspire actual votes.

[Eric J in MN]

5. The Dem Convention public list of speakers

...doesn't include Warren.

I hope that because she's on a private list for Day 3 when the VP nominee will speak.

[WhiteTara]

10. I thought she was to headline day one?

[Eric J in MN]

16. A few days ago, there was a leaked list

...with Warren on Day 1 and Sanders on Day 2.

However, the official convention website (probably updated today) says Sanders on Day 1 and doesn't mention Warren.

[riversedge]

7. Kaine was not a train wreck. He did well at the rally.

[DURHAM D]

8. Agree.

He was folksy, people in the flight over states like that.

[FSogol]

12. Does anyone ever consider that maybe Warren doesn't want to be VP?

She's going to have a lot of power in the Senate, why chuck that for a VP spot? She's proven before that she hates fundraising and campaigning. Why not stay in a safe Senate seat where she can do a lot of good, especially if HRC wins and we take back Congress.

[Eric J in MN]

17. She would have declined to be vetted if she didn't want it.

Vetting involves turning over private financial information.

Warren has traveled across the country as a fundraiser and campaigner.

[FSogol]

19. HRC's camapgin stated she was being vetted. Warren could have said

thanks, but no thanks instead of filling out the requested paperwork. We don't have any info to prove or disprove that.

Lots of Democrats are helping the campaign in various ways. That is the power of an organized party and not necessarily a sign that someone is be considered for a VP post.

[alarimer]

18. She needs to be able to put the pressure on from the left.

When Hillary inevitably tacks right. So taking her out of the Senates removes a potential headache for Clinton, but also renders Warren effectively neutral when Hillary decides to raise the age of SS or some such.

[forjusticethunders]

21. Why is that inevitable?

Hillary tacked right in right-wing political environment. Trump notwithstanding, this is a left-wing political environment (it's the media that's made Trump look stronger than he is)

[Eric J in MN]

32. I have faith in Warren to speak up

...if President HRC tries to raise the retirement age.

Privately if Warren is VP, publicly if Warren stays in the Senate.

[mblock]

13. Met this morning!

Just read on Twitter. She met with her. Sorry. Just reporters tweets. Fingers crossed

[onecent]

15. Oh PLEASE PICK WARREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hamsterjill]

20. My sentiments exactly!

Not Kaine. Please, not Kaine.

[vanlassie]

22. I still think she will pick Booker.

[AntiBank]

23. no way, the teachers will explode, plus he is a total wall streeter

[vanlassie]

24. True.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

38. So is she.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

41. While I agree with you, please know that I no longer care

about getting posts locked at a dying, Orwellian website. For what it's worth.

[AntiBank]

43. hmmm

[GumboYaYa]

27. I have my money on Julian Castro

He consolidates the Latino vote and appeals to younger voters. To get a second term Clinton will likely have competition better than Trump. She is going to need the Latino vote solidly on her side.

Castro also sets up well to run after Hillary is done and if he is part of the Clinton machine it give them the ability to project power past Hillary's time in office.

[HassleCat]

28. Conventional thinking

The usual pattern would be to pick someone from a populous state, someone who leans toward the conservative side, someone who is a man. The veep candidate is usually chosen to fill in some of the gaps, in terms of appealing to voters, left by the prez candidate. Elizabeth Warren doesn't do much for Clinton in conventional terms. If she were chosen, it would be a huge signal of an effort to stimulate the left-of-center Democrats, but I don't know how many "missing votes" that would fill in. Probably not many. It's certainly not the approved method or party has used since 1980. I would say Warren's chances are slim.

[SheilaT]

29. Why, oh why do so many of you here

want Elizabeth Warren to be rendered completely ineffectual, as she would be as Vice President? The VP has no real power, sets no policy, introduces no legislation. That person gets to make speeches, represent the President at places and events she can't go to, or doesn't want to.

She would be vastly more effective helping Hillary in the Senate. Really.

A couple of other considerations: although she looks at least fifteen years younger, Warren is only two years younger than Clinton. I know. Hard to believe, I know.

But more to the point with a President nearly 70, the VP should be significantly younger, for a lot of obvious reasons. I'm not that keen on any of the supposed front-runners myself, but I console myself that they rarely have to step into the Oval Office themselves.

[Eric J in MN]

33. Some VPs are influential.

Dick Cheney was influential in a bad way; a VP Elizabeth Warren would be influential in a good way.

[SheilaT]

34. Cheney was influential because Bush was incredibly weak.

Hillary Clinton is not weak, certainly not the way Bush was. While she presumably will listen to what members of her cabinet tell her, because that's precisely what they're taxed to do, the VP has no such formal role, and quite honestly, if there are any substantial differences in policy or positions between Clinton and Warren, I'm not sure I'd count on Warren to influence her.

Meanwhile, Warren can do a great deal in the Senate, especially if she is working closely with a President Clinton. She shouldn't be even remotely tempted to give up that power.

[joshcryer]

37. So she would easily win in 2024?

[AntiBank]

42. I want Warren as VP too, but I do not expect her to ever be president, as she would be almost 80

years old at the end of her first term

[SheilaT]

47. You realize she's only two years younger than Hillary Clinton, right?

Hard to believe, I know, because she looks twenty years younger.

But yes, in 2024 she'll be pushing 80 and will undoubtedly be completely out of the picture as a potential President. Which is among the reasons so many of us wanted her to run this time. Alas, it wasn't to be.

So yes, since she will never be President we need her in the Senate.

[underpants]

30. It was never going to be Warren and Kaine is a great choice n/t

[IamTheNoodle]

39. I think 2 women on the ticket will cost Hillary votes

We live in a sexist society which extends onto both sides of the aisle and into the middle. While I have no qualms with 2 women on the ticket I don't think it's a smart political move for where our society is right now, just as having a black VP with Obama wouldn't have been at smart political move. I highly doubt it happens, the base is locked up and voting for Hillary, we need the middle. After seeing Dubya win the office in 2004 I know how foolish the middle is capable of being.

[SheilaT]

48. I agree.

I think so many people are going to be totally freaked by a woman at the top of the ticket, her VP choice has to be someone very bland, very mainstream, very reassuring to lots of people.

It'll probably be centuries at best before people won't be obsessing about the gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation of all public figures. Maybe in 2624 the ticket can be a trans-gendered dwarf who is a Hindu and an orthodox Jew who has had seven children out of wedlock, all by different women and men. But in this particular era we don't have the luxury for a choice that to some would seem like a giant middle finger.

Perhaps if Bernie Sanders had won the primary I'd be rooting for an Elizabeth Warren Vice President, but I'd still be up against my conviction that she should remain in the Senate for now.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

44. I hope not.

Even if she'd be the best running mate, I 'm not convinced Warren would be the best *choice* of running mate - I'm not convinced there are not people not much worse who wouldn't cost us a senate seat, and I'm dubious about Reid's ability to prevent that.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. I suspect it will be someone mind-numbingly dull and less than inspiring, like Tim Kaine

but I still hope I'm wrong.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

46. I think she's got a good shot at it.

It'd be an olive branch to the Sanders wing of the party, and she'll be great on the campaign trail.